Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a quick read through and will leave comments (if there's anything to address from the last GAN) shortly ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

As with the last GAN, the lead is too short and does not summarise the article. To comply per WP:LEAD, I always follow the rule that it should act as a "mini article" by summarising almost every section. It is only two sentences long so I would strongly recommend expanding it to a couple of paragraphs (this can be done by shifting content around).
"Native inhabitants of these lands were frequently forced out" - which lands? Is this referring to Crimea?
Some facts in the Crimea section are unsourced. Sentences include "44.6% were Muslim" and "This association continued into the Soviet period" do not have citations
Shouldn't the Crimea section be renamed to History or something similar to a specific period? The content in it is more or less a brief history of Russian influence in Crimea
"42.2% of the population of the Crimean ASSR" - instances like these needs to be explained at their first mention. For example "Crimea had autonomy within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" should be reworded to Crimea had autonomy within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (SFSR) as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR) in order for the reader to understand what they mean
"made-up" - does there need to be a hyphen here?
"For the first time in history, ethnic Russians comprised the majority of the population of Crimea" - it ins't clear when this occured
I notice that there are three Demographics sections in this article. Usually there would be only one level two header in any article, but all of them here mean different things. Do you think it would make it clearer to reorganise it into one larger section?
"only the Roma were reported as not using Russian in daily life, citing Romani instead" - unsourced
The second paragraph of the Odessa Oblast section sounds a lot like demographics
Some sentences in the Odessa Oblast section also remain unsourced

On hold[edit]

OK, I realise it's almost the same as the previous GAN as it's only been a day - but I'm sure you can handle it. I have removed the question of "Great Britain" from this GAN and also removed a question regarding a citation after reading your message. In some parts such as the Odessa Oblast section there are a few citations; even if they are from the same source it is still a GA requirement for sentences with facts to have a citation (even when sometimes it does make it messy). Please let me know if you have any questions as it is essentially the same review, but I'll leave this on hold until you're happy with this. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed most of the concerns. The only thing left for me to do is to write the lead, which I'm doing now. Please tell me if the other concerns are adequately resolved. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing them, it should be fine. I'll wait until you've finished with the lead and this should be ready to go ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly behind schedule on this, but I hope to put in the new lead at the weekend. RGloucester — ☎ 04:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: The new lead is finally implemented! Please take a look, and tell me if you'd like me to do anything else. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted[edit]

Thank you for the improvements made RGloucester! Looks like we're good to go here. The article is now overall broad, well written and comprehensive. The lead has improved in leaps and bounds, really good work. Looks like a FA candidate now. Again I apologise about closing it last time, I can be a real idiot sometimes so I hope you can forgive me on that. Anyway, well deserved promotion ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]